Arjuna,
No hard feelings please. I have not rejected any of your beleifs. I have only mentioned that they are not compatible with vedanta. Your views on non vegetarianism have been rejected even by Adi Shankara, so I dont see any reason to withdraw that. You are free to beleive what you want - but Hinduism is essentially defined by Adi Shankara, Ramanuja etc, who have composed elaborate commentaries. Try even arguing your position on the advaita mailing list - you will not get any favourable response.
Originally Posted by
Arjuna
Brahma-sutra, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Yoga-vasishtha, Harivamsha, Puranas (including Bhagavatam), Grihya-sutras, Dharma-sutras etc are not Shruti, but Smriti.
Brahma sutras are not smriti, but the exposition of the vedas.
Rest of the stuff are quite irrelavant, as it is very unlikely that you have read any of the polemical literature. Blanket statements like "Rudra is the supreme Lord in Yajur- and Atharvana-vedas, in several Upanishads including one of 11 great Upanishads, namely Shvetashvatara" dont cut it.
Hope you realize that Rudra is just a common name not necessarily applicable to Shiva, esepcially when Rudra is mentioned to be created from nArAyaNa. All these things cannot be discussed in a small post like this. Vedas cannot claim that Rudra was created from the forehead of Narayana at one place, and then say Rudra is the first cause of all - you need to reconcile these carefully. There is not a single pramANa to show Narayana's origin from anything in the vedas.
Svetavastara Upanishad will not help you. Because it talks of multiple eternal entities, talks of eternal gross and subtle nature of Brahman and all that, and naturally contradicting your beleifs. Advaita never even seeks to explain these, just pushing them away as half-truths.
Originally Posted by
Arjuna
Advaita-darshana is never restricted to Shaivism and Shaktism. There are at least two schools of Vaishnavism which are monistic: Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha and Kashmirian monistic Vaishnavism.
Advaita (which is not necessarily Shankara's) is firmly based on Vedas, Upanishads, Agamas and is in total accordance with Gita and Brahma-sutras.
Gita and Brahma sutras have not given advaita any room. It will follow readily since the soul has been denied the power of creation, destruction etc, and for most people, that is enough to conclude there is multipicity in mukti. Except for those who think creation is an illusion and these verses have no real value. Is creation an illusion? Krishna has heavily condemned such notions repeatedly, see 16.8. Morover, BG says that jiva is a part of Brahman (15.7). Too many verses in Gita 2.12, 15.18 etc have indicated that multiplicity exists in mukti beyond any doubt. Also BG indicates that the soul attains a similar nature to Krishna in mukti, not compatible with advaita. It was quite inteligent of Adi Shankara to work around these verses, but that does not cut it. In his very own words and indirectly, he has conceded that Gita does not teach advaita, but that he was trying to impose advaita on it. Same thing with Brahma sutras. Read these commentaries with an open mind - many advaitins agree with non advaitin commentaries because they cant find any way to reject their reasoning.
I personally think advaita may never be talking of absolute monism, in which case it can be renconciled with VA. These Vishnu, Shiva stuff are not very relevant, except for creating a solid monotheistic religion and from an academic perspective. There are too many places in Brahma Sutras and Gita where Adi Shankara has to actually confess a form of Vishsitadvaita, due to the strong bias of the scripture.
Last edited by Ram; 07 May 2006 at 05:50 AM.
Om namO nArAyaNAya
--------
srIman nArAyaNa caranau caranam prapadye srImate nArAyaNAya namaha
--------
sarva-dharmAn parityajna mAm Ekam saranam vraja
aham tvan sarva- papebhyo moksayisyAmi ma suchah
Bookmarks